Government Response to the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Built Environment - Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of ...

Government Response to the Report of the
  House of Lords Select Committee on
         the Built Environment

                      Presented to Parliament
 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
                   by Command of Her Majesty

                        November 2016

 CM 9347

Government Response to the Report of the
  House of Lords Select Committee on
         the Built Environment

                      Presented to Parliament
 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
                   by Command of Her Majesty

                        November 2016

 CM 9347

© Crown copyright 2016

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information
Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright
holders concerned.

This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at

Department for Communities and Local Government
Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Tel: 0303 444 0000

Print ISBN 9781474138017
Web ISBN 9781474138024

ID 131016 11/16

Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum

Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

Introduction

    1. A House of Lords Select Committee was appointed on 11 June 2015 to consider the
    development and implementation of national policy for the built environment.

    2. Over the course of the inquiry the Committee received 187 submissions of written
    evidence and took oral evidence from 58 witnesses in 27 evidence sessions.
    The Committee published its report on 19 February 2016.

    3. It is widely acknowledged that the quality of life, prosperity, health and wellbeing of an
    individual is heavily influenced by the ‘place’ in which they live or work. The Committee
    considers that as a nation we need to recognise the power of place and to be much more
    ambitious when planning, designing, constructing and maintaining our built environment.

    4. Their report sets out measures they consider are important to achieve this aim.

    5. This response addresses the recommendations in the report.

Background

    6. There is no doubt that for decades we have been building insufficient homes to meet our
    country’s needs and that therefore we must increase the supply of new housing.
    Improving the housing market remains a top priority for the Government. We are clear that
    we will continue our work to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live and to
    devolve planning and housing powers to enable local authorities and communities to shape
    the development of their own area.

    7. Since 2010 the number of Local Plans in place has more than doubled. Neighbourhood
    planning has captured the imagination of communities across the country, and support for
    new homes has doubled over the last 4 years

    8. In the year to 30 June 2016, the reformed planning system has given permission for
    277,000 new homes, up 62% on the year to June 2011.

    9. The Government’s reforms are helping to boost housing supply, but we are crystal clear
    that we do not want development at any cost. We recognise the need for new homes to
    be balanced against the need to maintain strong environmental protections and we are
    adamant that the homes we build are sustainable.

    10. Development is not all about numbers. It is about creating places, buildings, or spaces
    that work well for everyone, look good, last well, and will adapt to the needs of future
    generations.

    11. All sections of society have a role to play in the delivery of a high quality built
    environment. While the Government has a leadership responsibility, in setting the overall
    Framework for development, it is local authorities, local communities, industry bodies and
    companies who possess the skills, knowledge and techniques to deliver quality design in
    their local area.

    12. The Government wants to ensure that we put in place the best possible conditions
    to plan and build better places to live for everyone. We are always looking for ways to
    improve the built environment and we appreciate the Committee’s comprehensive inquiry
    and detailed report.

Recommendations/measures and response

    13. There are two critical elements currently missing in national policy for the built
    environment. There is an urgent need for much greater co-ordination and integration
    across the multiple Government departments that effect and respond to the built
    environment. There is also a need for a national organisation with the capacity to
    undertake research, develop guidance and build the networks necessary to raise
    standards and drive better performance. Solving the first of these problems requires
    access to Government, while delivering against the second objective requires a
    degree of independence from it.

    14. The built environment cuts across a number of central Government departments
    and our evidence has demonstrated that integration of policy is sadly lacking.
    We believe that the Cabinet Office should initially play a greater role in addressing
    policy coordination in this field, by reviewing areas of policy overlap between different
    departments and publishing definitive guidance on the division of responsibilities.

    15. The Government considers that there is strong policy co-ordination of matters affecting
    the Built Environment. While responsibilities for individual topics are a matter for the
    Prime Minister, there are robust procedures in place to understand the impact of individual
    departmental policies.

    16. Cabinet Committees provide the official forum for decision-making and consideration
    of inter-departmental issues. Alongside the Cabinet Committees, the Government has
    established a number of Implementation Taskforces to monitor and drive delivery on the most
    important crosscutting priorities. This includes a housing taskforce.

    17. These taskforces will bring together the key Ministers and officials on a regular basis to
    track progress; spot potential problems and blockages and agree plans for resolving them;
    maintain momentum and ensure accountability; and make sure that actions are followed
    through.

    18. Each taskforce will report to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on a regular basis. Matters
    requiring collective agreement will continue to be dealt with by Cabinet and its committees.

    19. To deliver longer-term coordination we recommend the appointment of a Chief
    Built Environment Adviser, a recognised expert appointed from within the sector to
    lead this work at an official level. The role of the Chief Built Environment Adviser
    would be to co-ordinate relevant policy across central Government departments,
    to act as a champion for higher standards and to promote good practice across
    and beyond Government. The status and reporting arrangements of the Chief Built
    Environment Adviser should be broadly equivalent to those of the Government Chief
    Scientific Adviser.

We recommend that the Chief Built Environment Adviser should produce an annual
report providing high-level monitoring of quality and delivery within the built
environment, and establishing priorities for research, policy and action. The annual
reports should be laid before Parliament as Command Papers. We believe it is
important that the Government sets high standards for the built environment, and
provides the vision, aspiration and leadership to enable others to deliver against those
standards. We recommend that the Government should publish, consult on and adopt
a high level policy for architecture and place quality in England. Following adoption,
the policy should be monitored and reviewed at regular intervals. Publication of this
policy should be an early priority for the Chief Built Environment Adviser who should,
thereafter, keep it under review.

20. The Government recognises that the built environment cuts across a number of central
Government departments but considers that there is strong policy co-ordination on matters
that affect the built environment.

21. At present the Chief Planner provides the central leadership to ensure the planning
system supports the delivery of housing growth, climate change, sustainable economic
development and works to protect and enhance the natural environment.

22. The Chief Planner’s priorities include helping local authorities deliver their Local Plans
for better housing and sustainable communities and to ensure that planning promotes the
development of prosperous and vibrant communities.

23. The planning system supports good design and place making. The National Planning
Policy Framework makes clear that permission should be refused for development of poor
design; attaches significant weight to truly outstanding or innovative designs; and says
that local planning authorities should have local design review arrangements in place to
provide assessment and support to ensure high standards of design. They should also when
appropriate refer major projects for National Design Review and should have regard to the
recommendations from the design review panel.

24. The transfer of responsibilities for architecture from the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport to the Department for Communities and Local Government will ensure that
housing and planning policy is more closely aligned with good architecture. We will look
at developing the Chief Planner role to include discussing and facilitating communication
and implementation of policy on the built environment and to identifying and sharing good
practice across and beyond Government.

25. We consider this a better use of resources than creating a specific new senior role.

26. We believe that some of the key functions carried out by the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment have been lost. This is to the long-term
detriment of the built environment. We recommend that the Government should
establish and fund a small, strategic unit to conduct, commission and disseminate
research and guidance on architecture and design within the built environment.
This new unit should be led by the Chief Built Environment Adviser, and should have
access to expertise, research and insight from across and beyond Government.

27. The Government takes architecture and design very seriously. In its new form, Design
Council CABE is continuing to provide design support for large development projects by
charging clients, the developer or local authority, for its services, rather than drawing on
taxpayer money. Based on this model, it has successfully evolved into an efficient, self-
sustaining charitable business, which provides local authorities with expertise, research and
insight.

28. These services are supported by its network of Built Environment Experts (BEEs),
a nationwide, multidisciplinary team of 250 experts from architecture, planning and
infrastructure backgrounds, as well as academics, health specialists and community
engagement workers.

29. As well as design reviews and customised expert support, BEEs also provide training and
continued professional development to local authorities. This actively improves the capability
of planners around the country.

30. The Design Advisory Panel, which meets with the Minister for Housing and Planning on a
quarterly basis, was set up in 2015 to help set the bar on housing design across the country.
The Panel brings together experienced representatives from the British housing and design
industry, including architects Sir Terry Farrell and Quinlan Terry, design bodies such as RIBA
and Design Council, and industry representatives such as the House Builders Federation.

31. One of the Panel’s first tasks was to help develop a Starter Homes design exemplars
document, published in March 2015, to help ensure that new starter homes are popular
with buyers and communities and designed to stand the test of time. The Panel is currently
focusing on supporting local authorities’ planning departments by producing a community
involvement toolkit, drawing on existing neighbourhood planning frameworks and best
practice, to encourage a community-led approach to building new homes.

32. We also encourage industry innovation in design through our support for the Housing
Design Awards.

33. As stated previously we will consider the existing role of the Chief Planner taking on
responsibilities of a Chief Built Environment Advisor.

34. We believe that the Government, and other major public sector commissioners,
must lead by example and set the highest possible standards in major construction
projects. We recommend that the Government Construction Strategy should be
reviewed. This review should acknowledge and emphasise the Government’s
leadership role in these matters, and set out measures and mechanisms for
implementing high standards of public procurement in construction projects, seeking
to balance place and quality with value.

35. The Government’s Construction Strategy (GCS) first published in July 2011, set out a
range of activities Government would undertake to reform industry practice, reduce waste
and drive better value from its procurement of construction.

36. Collective action under the mandate of GCS 2011-15 began to change the relationship
between the government and the construction industry. We have become a better client
that clearly communicates our requirements to industry about our programme of work.
This improved client behaviour and positive response from industry delivered £3 billion of
efficiency savings over 2011-15.

37. On the 21 March 2016 we published the new Government Construction Strategy.
The strategy establishes a new plan to increase productivity in government construction to
deliver £1.7 billion efficiencies and support 20,000 apprenticeships over the course of this
parliament.

38. The strategy sets out ambitions for smarter procurement, fairer payment, improving
digital skills, reducing carbon emissions, and increasing client capability. These themes
are consistent with the wider ambitions for industry in Construction 2025, which is being
delivered by industry and government through the Construction Leadership Council.

39. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority construction team in partnership with the
major construction spending departments and agencies, who comprise the Government
Construction Board team, will oversee the implementation of GCS 2016-20 and provide
strategic direction.

40. It is important that planners and all policy makers, including those working in
housing, take account of the health impacts of their decisions; failure to do so will
lead to significant long-term costs. We welcome the inclusion of specific health
policies within the National Planning Policy Framework, but there is much work still to
be done to encourage proper integration between planning and health.
Health and Wellbeing Boards need to play a more proactive role in developing links,
across different local authority structures, to encourage greater integration.

41. The Government recognises the importance of considering health as part of the planning
process and believes health impacts should be considered as part of the wider policy
environment.

42. For example, one of the categories in the planning practice guidance is health and
wellbeing. This sets out how the planning system can help support healthy communities
with specific involvement of Directors of Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards, and
commissioners and providers of NHS healthcare services.

43. The Government acknowledges that Health and Wellbeing Boards can play a strong
local role in helping to create the conditions in which there is genuine collaboration across
local areas. We also recognise that more could be done to ensure all Health and Wellbeing
Boards fully realise their potential. For example, Local Health and Wellbeing Boards might
wish to review and consider how their local health strategies, such as those designed to
reduce obesity, make reference to the impact of the built environment which, in turn, can
then be used by local planners as supportive evidence when developing Local Plans and/or
considering development proposals.

44. The Department for Communities and Local Government will continue to work with
the Department of Health to determine where the planning practice guidance could be
strengthened to assist local areas in their efforts to better integrate health and planning
through the planning process.

45. If built environment policies are to take account of health impacts it is essential
that they are informed by a robust evidence base. Local authorities should be
proactive in undertaking monitoring of the health outcomes and impacts of planning
decisions. We recommend that the Government should, within the national planning
practice guidance, set out a common framework of health indicators for local planning
authorities to monitor.

46. The Government attaches great importance on promoting healthy communities and
agrees that policies in Local Plans should be informed by a robust evidence base.

47. Local planning authorities are required to take into account the Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment (JSNA) as health evidence in plan-making. The JSNA supports the development
of local Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies, which local planning authorities are required
to take into account as a core planning principle. In addition local planning authorities are
required to undertake monitoring of Local Plan implementation through publication of the
annual Authority Monitoring Reports.

48. The Public Health Outcomes Framework (PHOF) Healthy lives, healthy people:
Improving outcomes and supporting transparency sets out a vision for public health, desired
outcomes and the indicators that will help us understand how well public health is being
improved and protected.

49. The PHOF concentrates on two high-level outcomes to be achieved across the public
health system, and groups further indicators into four ‘domains’ that cover the full spectrum of
public health. The outcomes reflect a focus not only on how long people live, but on how well
they live at all stages of life and includes indicators relevant to the built environment.

50. Public Health England is responsible for publishing and updating the data for all these
indicators. Local planning authorities, in working with their public health functions, have the
opportunity to use local data from the Framework to inform their health needs assessments.

51. The Government believes the current framework for monitoring health impacts is
sufficiently robust and the onus is placed on local authorities to develop locally-led solutions.
However, we will consider how indicators from the PHOF might be brought within national
planning practice guidance.

52. We welcome recent moves towards the adoption and use of health impact
assessments in decision making on major planning applications. We call upon the
Government to support such initiatives, and to examine ways in which health impact
assessments could be more closely integrated into development management
processes.

53. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that the planning system can play an
important role in creating healthy, inclusive communities. It sets out that through plan making
and decision taking planning should take account of and support local strategies to improve
health, social and cultural wellbeing for all.

54. Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) may be used to avoid and mitigate health impacts and
to also maximise health gains. Local authorities may request a health impact assessment
where this information is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question.
Planning practice guidance already recognises the ability of local planning authorities as part
of the planning applications process to ensure health impacts are identified and mitigated
against early in a development scheme.

55. The Government believes that this locally led approach strikes the right balance between
allowing local flexibility to request this type of information and ensuring that only information
that is relevant and proportionate to the nature and scale of development can be sought by
the local planning authority.

56. Public Health England manages and promotes the Health Impact Assessment Gateway.
This online resource, free at the point of use, holds a significant resource library of health
impact assessments which have been undertaken worldwide.

57. Decisions regarding streets and highways have a major impact upon the built
environment, as well as on air quality and pedestrian safety. Those decisions should
be made in accordance with existing best practice guidance. We recommend that local
authorities—including authorities with highways responsibilities—should fully adopt
Manual for Streets and should adhere to the policies contained within it.

58. The Government is pleased that the Committee considers Manual for Streets a reference
point for those involved in the design of residential neighbourhoods.

59. Published in 2007, the Manual completely changed the approach to the design and
provision of residential and other streets. Manual for Streets 2, published in 2010 by the
Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation in collaboration with the Department for
Transport, extended the principles to cover other streets and roads on similar lines.

60. We would note that national planning policy has changed since the publication of Manual
for Streets. The reformed National Planning Policy Framework introduced in 2012 sets out
our commitment to sustainable development, and we remain committed to encouraging
all those involved in the design of residential and other streets to make use of the proven
technical advice within the Manuals to create places that work for communities now, and in
the future.

61. Interventions in the public realm are frequently uncoordinated, and suffer from
a lack of accountable leadership. All too often the poor quality of the public realm
proves detrimental to the built environment and to those people who live within it.
We recommend that local authorities should give one Cabinet Member (or senior
officer) responsibility for coordinating services which impact upon street quality
and the public realm. Such services have a major impact upon the wellbeing of local
people and communities.

62. The Government fully recognises the impact upon the wellbeing of local people and
communities of street quality and the public realm.

63. Use of tools such as design codes, design review, the Building for Life 12 housing design
checklist and community involvement techniques can help to engage the right people in
design discussions at the right stage and this can help to gain support for development and
drive up design quality and gain support for new development locally.

64. The Government acknowledges that local authorities need to give planning the priority
it needs, to support and safeguard the quality of both existing and new environments.
We agree with the thrust of this recommendation but while the Government are continuing
to discuss the future resourcing of planning services with a range of interests, it is for local
authorities to decide how to deploy their resources to deliver a quality service for their
communities.

65. We welcome the establishment of the National Infrastructure Commission and
the capacity that it should provide to take a longer-term view of infrastructure needs.
We believe, however, that transport infrastructure in particular needs to be properly
integrated into its local surroundings, in order to deliver full economic and social
benefits, and an appropriate return on investment.

The knowledge required to support this integration is often held by local stakeholders
and communities. While the Commission is tasked with considering national priorities,
the effects of its proposals and projects will often be local in nature.

The Commission will need to develop an approach to engaging with local
communities, and mechanisms to encourage community support for projects.
We note that the Commission is currently undertaking a consultation on its structures
and operating practices. As part of its response to that consultation we recommend
that the Commission should consider, and publicise its approach to:

     • The design impacts and issues associated with its work, and how these will be
     taken into account; and

     • How it will work with local people, local authorities and other partners to ensure
     that infrastructure investments deliver maximum wider social, environmental and
     economic benefits.

66. The Government recognises the importance of engaging with local communities and
having regard to local knowledge when planning and designing new infrastructure at the
national and local level.

67. The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) was set up to identify the country’s
strategic infrastructure needs over the next 10 to 30 years and propose solutions to the
most pressing infrastructure issues. The NIC currently operates in interim form. The
GOVERNMENT announced on 12th October that the NIC would be established on a
permanent basis as an Executive Agency of HM Treasury in January 2017.

68. The NIC will make independent recommendations and will help to build a more
consensual approach to policy making and create a co-ordinated structure for an ongoing
dialogue between politicians, government, industry and the public. The NIC will engage
with the public, policy-makers, infrastructure experts and relevant bodies openly and
transparently, drawing on a broad range of expertise.

69. We welcome the emphasis placed on design review in the National Planning Policy
Framework. Design review has the potential to deliver significant improvements
to planning proposals, thereby raising standards and encouraging community
acceptance of development. It can, therefore, help to speed up the process of securing
planning permission. We note, however, that the current provision of such services
is disjointed and fragmented. In some places, there are issues of funding and quality.
In part, this is a result of the voluntary nature of design review; an insufficient
number of applications are going through the process to justify wider investment.
The Government should make design review mandatory for all major planning
applications; major applications have major impacts on the communities in which they
take place.

70. The Government is pleased that the Select Committee recognises our encouragement of
the wider use of design review, including through promotion in the National Planning Policy
Framework, as a useful way of achieving good design.

71. The use of design review is increasing, partly thanks to its use in high-profile schemes
such as the Olympic Park and the large scale redevelopment at Vauxhall.

72. We do not mandate the use of design review because we believe that local authorities
are best placed to make local planning decisions. However more and more local authorities,
most recently Oxford and Thurrock, are making design review mandatory for major planning
applications. We expect this trend to continue as other local authorities recognise the
benefits that design review plans offer.

73. The Government has stated its intention to make permanent the change in office to
residential permitted development rights. It is clear; however, that in some parts of the
country this change could be detrimental to the built environment. There are concerns
regarding the design quality and suitability of some of the housing that is being
provided through these conversions. In addition, concerns have been expressed
regarding the loss of local character and important employment sites, posing a threat
to the mix of uses required to deliver sustainable places. Local authorities are well
placed to understand whether an increase in office to residential conversions will be
appropriate for their area. We believe that, when changing permitted development
rights, the Government must also make it easier for local authorities to respond to
local circumstances. We recommend that the Government should review and remove
some of the restrictions that currently prevent more widespread use of Article 4
directions by local authorities. One such result might be the removal of the current 12
month period of notice that councils are required to observe in order to avoid liability
for compensation payments.

74. The Government has an ambition to significantly increase housing supply, and agrees
that it is key to ensure that development is sustainable. The permitted development right
for the change of use from office to residential has provided additional much needed new
homes. We have therefore made the right permanent from 6 April 2016 so that it can
continue to play a part in delivering new housing.

75. The permitted development right allows for consideration by the local authority of specific
impacts as matters for prior approval; highways and transport, contamination and the risk
of flooding. In addition, the permanent right allows local planning authorities to consider
proposals to mitigate the impact of noise from commercial premises on new residential
occupants. All new dwellings delivered under permitted development rights are required
to meet building regulations. The right provides only for the change of use, and planning
permission is required for any external physical works, including to the design or physical
appearance of the building. We look to developers to build quality homes, and as with all
businesses it will be up to the market to determine whether anyone is willing to buy such
properties.

76. Local authorities can make an Article 4 direction in respect of an employment area or
specific building where it is felt that it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of the
area.

77. The Article 4 process is not costly or burdensome. Rather it seeks to ensure that those
whose permitted development rights are being removed are consulted, so that a proper
debate can occur before a direction takes force. There is a clear and streamlined process
for making an Article 4 direction. This process was put in place in 2010 and guidance is
provided. Local planning authorities are familiar with the process, with around 200 authorities
having made 600 directions since 2010 on a wide range of permitted development rights.

78. Local authorities can make an immediate direction. Where they do so, it is right that those
whose rights are removed have recourse to compensation if they are subsequently refused
planning permission for the same development within a year. The Government believes
these procedures strike the right balance.

79. We are anxious to ensure that moves towards a permission in principle do not
undermine the capacity of local authorities to develop, design and integrate key sites
in a way that ensures that they function effectively and respond to local needs and
aspirations. The relationship between principle and detail is important in the planning
system. We recommend that the Government should carefully consider the impact
its reforms could have upon this relationship. As a minimum, it is important that the
process of granting permission in principle and Technical Details Consent should give
due regard to design quality, sustainability, archaeology, heritage and all the other
key components of place-making that would normally be required for the granting of
planning permission.

80. Permission in Principle is a new route to obtaining planning permission that will
give greater up-front certainty that an amount of housing-led development is suitable in
principle. However, permission in principle will not remove the need to assess the impact
of development properly before full planning permission is granted. We are clear that the
assessment of all sites against local and national planning policy is at the heart of both the
decision to grant permission in principle and the subsequent technical details consent.

81. We are currently considering responses to our technical consultation on the
approach to granting permission in principle and technical details consent and how
these processes can be best designed and integrated. We will take the Committee’s
views into account in this context.

82. We call on the Government to examine ways in which the provision of specialist
retirement housing can be incentivised and increased. We recommend that the
Government should examine and review the case for exempting such housing from
Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy payments.

83. The Government agrees it is important to provide a range of housing types, including
specialist retirement housing. The National Planning Policy Framework already requires local
planning authorities to plan for a mix of housing based on current and future populations
and needs, and in March 2015, we published updated planning guidance to reinforce this
expectation.

84. Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local authority to seek
a section 106 planning obligation if a proposed development is considered to be otherwise
unacceptable in planning terms. A section 106 obligation can only be sought where it is
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the
proposed development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed
development. It is for the local authority to decide whether a section 106 obligation is
required.

85. The Community Infrastructure Levy was introduced in 2010 to provide a system for
collecting developer contributions that is fairer, and faster, and more transparent than
individually negotiated section 106 agreements. Development priorities, infrastructure needs
and viability will clearly vary from area to area and this will be reflected in different local
approaches to setting levy rates.

86. The viability of development set out in Local Plans should not be threatened by the
level of development contributions sought. The regulations allow charging authorities to
apply differential rates in a flexible way, to help ensure the viability of development is not
put at risk. Differences in rates will be tested and need to be justified by reference to the
economic viability of development. Our guidance makes clear that differential rates may be
appropriate in relation to geographical zones within the charging authority’s boundary, types
of development; and/or scales of development.

87. The Government acknowledges the importance of specialist retirement housing provision
but considers that there is sufficient flexibility for exemptions to be set at the local level where
these meet the needs of local communities. We have commissioned an independent panel
to review the levy to assess its effectiveness and to recommend any changes that would
improve its operation. The review includes considering the exemptions and reliefs from
Community Infrastucture Levy.

88. We believe that the Lifetime Homes standard can play a key part in addressing
the demographic challenge facing our housing stock. We recommend that local
authorities should be required, within their local planning policies, to set appropriately
ambitious targets for the delivery of Lifetime Homes.

89. The Government agrees that it is important to ensure new development takes into
account the impacts of long term demographic change. The UK’s population is projected to
increase by 4.3 million people over the next ten years. As the population grows we need to
ensure that new housing development includes a range of property types capable of meeting
a wide range of household need.

90. The Government is firmly committed to ensuring that planning policies positively reflect
the range of circumstances and life styles of the local population. The National Planning
Policy Framework sets out that local authorities should plan for a mix of housing, based on
the needs of different groups in the community, such as families with children, older people,
people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes.

91. Our planning guidance asks local authorities to examine current and future trends.
Plan makers should look at the proportion of the population of different age profile, household
types, tenure and size of homes in the current stock and in recent supply and assess how
continuation of these trends would meet future needs.

92. In March 2015 the Government introduced two new Optional Building Regulations
into Part M of the Building Regulations. This includes technical standards for Category 2:
Accessible and Adaptable dwellings (which are similar to the Lifetime Homes Standard) as
well as Category 3: Wheelchair User Dwellings, which can provide even higher levels of
accessibility.

93. Planning guidance on accessible housing has also been issued setting out how these
standards can be used in meeting the needs of a wide range of households. Decisions as to
what proportion of development meets these standards rests with the local authority who are
best placed to decide what level of provision is necessary to meet local need.

94. We believe that accessibility in the built environment is of vital importance;
improving the standard of accessibility is essential if we are to address the long term
demographic changes that are projected to take place.

We recommend that the Government should set an appropriately high standard in
this regard, and should provide guidance drawn from best practice examples such as
the Olympic Park. Local authorities and their partners must give this an appropriate
degree of priority, and should look to develop and apply ‘lifetime neighbourhood’
principles within their local planning policies.

95. The Government agrees it is important to always improve the standard of accessibility in
the built environment.

96. Existing guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework encourages new
developments to use good inclusive design so that we create accessible and healthy
communities. Inclusive design in that context is defined as designing the built environment,
including buildings and their surrounding spaces, to ensure that they can be accessed and
used by everyone. This includes designing safe and accessible developments which contain
clear and legible pedestrian routes and high quality public spaces, and which encourage the
active and continual use of public areas.

97. We have worked with Design Council CABE and a wide consortium of construction
industry professions, alongside the Construction Industry Council, to develop a Built
Environment Industry Action Plan which seeks to embed inclusive design in the construction
industry attitudes and practice.

98. We welcome the intent of this recommendation and will continue in our efforts to improve
inclusive design through collaboration with industry.

99. The Government agrees it is important to set high standards and follow good precedent
for public and private spaces in the built environment. The Olympic Park is a successful
example of inclusive design and the lessons learnt from this example have been taken into
initiatives for wider cultural and construction industry practice.

100. Changing technologies and patterns of retail behaviour are posing a significant
challenge to our high streets. There is a threat to the long-term resilience of our town
centres and the vitality of the urban built environment. We believe that local leadership
is central in addressing this challenge.

101. The Government recognises that high streets face significant structural challenges, and
need to adapt to attract the modern consumer, including the quickly evolving use of modern
technology and digital innovation.

102. However, despite challenging economic circumstances, there are signs that high streets
are starting to recover. Recent data is showing positive footfall trends in most locations and
the national vacancy rate is also now at a level not seen since December 2009.
Investment in high street property is also up 30% in the last year. Town centres are a crucial
part of our local and regional economies, creating jobs, nurturing small businesses and
injecting billions of pounds into our economy. A recent ATCM report found that town centres
contribute nearly £600 billion pounds to UK PLC each year.

103. High streets and retailers have shown themselves to be highly adaptable, resilient and
creative by bringing new business into town centres – including some on-line businesses
such as Amazon and exploiting the opportunities created by on-line shopping with the rise
in click and collect buying. This is now supported by additional permitted development
rights. Research has shown that click and collect and the growing “convenience culture” are
boosting a revival in the traditional high street by encouraging people back.

104. Existing guidance already makes clear that local planning authorities should plan
positively to support town centres. However, it is not solely about retail – we are committed
to promoting mixed use high streets, with a stronger range of retail, services and, more
importantly, residential opportunities. Delivering more housing in town centres boosts footfall,
supports the evening economy and provides much needed housing on brownfield land.
Town centres are ideal locations for young people to get their foot on the ladder. The Starter
Homes Land Fund, launched in March 2016, is an opportunity for local authorities to support
growth and regeneration in town centres and around stations and commuter hubs, bringing
in young families, supporting diversification and strengthening the leisure and retail offer.
Attracting new investment to town centres is crucial, and Government is working to help link
local areas to new developers and investors.

105. The Government is committed to helping communities adapt to make high streets fit
for purpose for today’s consumer, but believes that local communities should decide what
their high street will look like in the future, and put in place local leadership that will deliver a
joint vision. Indeed, the Future High Streets Forum, bringing together business leaders and
Government, published a model for local leadership in May 2014, pinpointing strong local
partnerships as critical to building successful high streets. The Great British High Street
Awards demonstrate what is possible when local people work together to support their
communities, and the civic pride this brings. The Awards recognise and celebrate the real
strides that high streets are making, and the diversity and vital services they provide to their
local community. The Government launched a Good Practice Guide on 17 March 2016 to
showcase many of the great things that the 2015 Great British High Streets Awards finalists
and Rising Stars delivered and lessons learnt. The Guide contains practical guidance to help
councils, working with local businesses and other partners, improve their local high streets.

106. The Government has taken a number of other steps to help places restructure their high
streets, to help promote mixed-use high streets, with a stronger range of retail, services and
residential opportunities. Planning reforms are helping high streets to be more flexible and
making it easier to convert surplus shops into homes. We have also introduced a package
of important financial reliefs for small businesses, including an announcement at Budget
2016 of the biggest ever cut in business rates in England – worth £6.7bn over the next five
years. 600,000 of the smallest businesses will not have to pay business rates again, and the
Government is permanently doubling Small Business Rate Relief from 50% to 100%.
We are also modernising the administration of business rates to make it fit for the 21st
century, and will work with local authorities across England to standardise business rate bills
and ensure ratepayers have the option to receive and pay bills online by April 2017.
In addition, we have reviewed the role and power of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs),
and are taking forward changes that will mean that BIDs can become more involved in local
decisions that affect their area.

107. The Government has also brought forward a range of measures to help drivers,
including banning CCTV “spy cars”, introducing 10 minute grace periods and a new right to
challenge parking policies.

108. Planners should continue to encourage retail development into existing town
centres. They must also begin to think more proactively, and creatively, about other
ways to stimulate additional activity and footfall. Additional residential development
may help to deliver this, but must be implemented with due regard for design quality,
living standards, a diverse and sustainable mix of uses and the overall cohesion
of the built environment. A wide range of services, alongside retail, can help to
drive footfall. These include leisure, culture, sports, health, education and small
scale manufacturing. Local authorities should use their multiple resources and
responsibilities to proactively shape their town centres and positively plan for their
future.

109. The Government agrees it is important to protect our town centres and to ensure their
continuing vitality.

110. Existing guidance already makes clear that local planning authorities should plan
positively, to support town centres to generate local employment, promote beneficial
competition within and between town centres, and create attractive, diverse places where
people want to live, visit and work. The guidance further makes clear that such authorities
should assess and plan to meet the needs of main town centre uses in full, in broadly the
same way as for their housing and economic needs, adopting a ‘town centre first’ approach.

111. The Government welcomes the intent of this recommendation, not least because it
supports existing Government policy. The National Planning Policy Framework supports the
continued vitality of town centres, recognising that they are not just retail areas.
The sequential test and impact test continue to be useful policy devices to help protect town
centres, but local authorities do need to avoid protecting land for certain purposes where
there is no realistic prospect of it being used for that purpose. The Government believes
that ultimately the protection of town centres rests with local authorities and their local
communities.

112. England lacks a proactive, long-term national strategy for managing our historic
environment, as part of planning for the future of the built environment. We believe
that such a strategy, which would recognise the full value of our built heritage as a
unique national and local asset, central to place-making, should be articulated for the
future.

113. The Government recognises that England’s historic environment is a resource of
significant cultural, social and economic value.

114. Through a combination of regulatory controls (including the statutory heritage protection
and planning systems), policy (such as the National Planning Policy Framework) and fiscal
incentives (such as the Environmental Stewardship scheme) the Government has set in
place frameworks that promote its conservation and management.

115. Building on these foundations, heritage features prominently in the Culture White Paper,
published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 23 March. In this document
the Government has reiterated its commitment to the historic environment, including by
supporting Historic England to:

     • establish ‘Heritage Action Zones’ to build and improve relationships between local
     partners to manage change and new developments better, and to stimulate the
     productivity of the historic environment through regeneration and growth

• identify how it can offer more support to local authorities, reduce demand on local
     services through clearer guidance, and encourage new delivery models that make the
     best use of resources, in the light of the review of local authority archaeological services

     • work with local authorities to enhance and rationalise national and local heritage
     information systems over the next ten years, so that communities and developers have
     easy access to historic environment records (HERs).

116. The Government will also bring national arts and heritage Lottery funders together to
work on a new Great Place scheme to back local communities who want to put culture at the
heart of their local vision, supporting jobs, economic growth, education, health and wellbeing.
This will help to ensure communities are recognising and making the most of their heritage
assets.

117. To support the conservation of our heritage, the Government has provided £3m of
new funding for the Architectural Heritage Fund to support heritage organisations to advise
communities on how they can make best use of their historic buildings. The Heritage Lottery
Fund will build on its £25 million investment in the Heritage Enterprise Programme to support
heritage to become financially self-sustaining. A further £20m will be provided across
2016-17 and 2017-18 to extend the First World War Centenary cathedral repairs fund and
establish a review to examine how church buildings and cathedrals in England can become
more financially sustainable.

118. Both DCMS and DCLG are responsible, in different ways, for heritage policy and
the way in which these policies impact upon the built environment. We do not support
the calls for ministerial responsibility for heritage to move from DCMS to DCLG.
We would like, however, to see evidence of more joint leadership and proactive joint
working between the departments in developing policies, for example, for heritage and
regeneration, and across joint policy areas such as the protection of World Heritage
Sites.

119. The Government agrees it is important for the Department for Communities and Local
Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to work together to ensure
the protection of the historic environment. The departments meet regularly to discuss and
agree the Government’s approach to heritage matters.

120. Both departments also work very closely with Historic England as the Government’s
adviser on the historic environment, to ensure that any changes in policy or legislation can
be delivered effectively. Most recently, we have worked together to revise the Government’s
planning guidance on the historic environment and to deliver legislative changes to
streamline the listed building consent regime.

121. The Government is committed to the protection of the historic environment and DCLG,
DCMS and Historic England will continue to work together to deliver this.

122. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to balance heritage protection
and development policies. We believe that it is essential that this balance is sustained,
enhanced and delivered. We recommend that planning and development policy
and practice should reflect more explicitly the fact that our historic environment
is a cultural and economic asset rather than an obstacle to successful future
developments—whether in urban or rural areas—and can contribute, uniquely, to the
highest standards of design and the quality of community life.

123. The Government agrees that it is important to see the approach to achieving sustainable
development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework reflected in the outcomes
achieved in practice and we recognise the significant economic and social value and benefits
that the historic environment provides.

124. Historic England and the heritage sector produce evidence to demonstrate the wider
social and economic benefits of heritage and publish the results in Heritage Counts and
publications such as Heritage and the Economy and Vital Statistics. Historic England will
continue to demonstrate the positive benefits of incorporating heritage with new development
through its Constructive Conservation initiative.

125. Existing guidance is being revised by Historic England and the heritage sector as Good
Practice Advice which outlines the way national policy and guidance can be put into practice.
Additionally, Historic England makes further advice available through its website, Advice
Notes and other briefing material. Historic England also delivers training on all relevant
guidance and advice, particularly focusing on new or revised advice.

126. At present, VAT is charged at a rate of 20% on repairs and maintenance to
existing buildings, while VAT on much new-build construction is zerorated. This
provides a perverse disincentive to the retention, restoration and revitalisation of
historic buildings, and works to prevent owners from looking after them properly.
We recommend that the Government should review the rates of VAT charged on
repairs to listed buildings, and examine the economic rationale for reducing the rate.

127. VAT is a broad based tax on consumption and normal VAT rules apply the twenty per
cent standard rate to all goods and services unless a specific exception applies. VAT raises
a significant amount of revenue and plays an important part in funding the Government’s
priorities, including education, defence, and the National Health Service. Exceptions to the
standard rate are therefore strictly limited by revenue considerations, in addition to legal
constraints.

128. Under the current legal framework the zero-rate of VAT can only be applied to
residential or charitable property that is either newly constructed, converted from commercial
to residential use, renovated after a prolonged period without use, or is a listed building that
has been substantially reconstructed.

129. Until negotiations on our departure from the European Union are complete our rights
and obligations remain unchanged. That includes the application of EU VAT rules.

130. We recommend that the Government takes a more proactive approach to the
provision of Sustainable Drainage Systems. The Government should consider whether
to introduce a separate approval regime, as was envisaged in the Flood and Water
Management Act 2010, or whether to upgrade the status of Sustainable Drainage
Systems to critical infrastructure.

131. The Government recognises the important role sustainable drainage systems play in
helping to manage flood risk from surface water, as well as delivering other environmental
benefits. The Government therefore welcomes the intent of this recommendation.

132. Existing national planning policy has clear requirements relating to sustainable drainage
systems, including that priority should be given to their use if development is considered in
areas at risk of flooding. These requirements were strengthened in April 2015 in relation to
major new developments. Additionally, developers must comply with the building regulations
which give priority to sustainable drainage systems in their hierarchy of arrangements for
dealing with rainwater.

133. Full and careful consideration was given to the proposal to introduce a separate
approval regime for sustainable drainage systems under the Flood and Water Management
Act 2010. Following enactment of the Act, proposals to implement the provisions under
section 32 and Schedule 3 were put to public consultation. The response to that consultation
gave rise to a number of issues. These included the potential impact on the delivery of new
development under a system that required the approval of sustainable drainage systems
under a separate consenting regime to that for approving planning applications. There were
concerns this could add undue delay to the consenting process and impact on speed of
planning decisions.

134. The Coalition Government listened to that response and in autumn 2014, put forward
for consultation a new proposal to make better use of the existing planning system to
deliver sustainable drainage systems. In the light of the response to that consultation and
a subsequent government announcement in December 2014, national planning policy was
strengthened with effect from April 2015 to make clear the expectation that sustainable
drainage systems would be provided in all major new developments (e.g. developments
of 10 dwellings or more and major commercial development), unless demonstrated to be
inappropriate. In addition, lead local flood authorities were made statutory consultees for
all planning applications for major developments with surface water drainage implications.
This ensures that local planning authorities have access to appropriate technical expertise
and advice. National planning practice guidance has also been strengthened, setting out the
considerations and options for sustainable drainage systems, including in relation to their
operation and maintenance.

135. The Government therefore believes it has a strong package of measures in place
to ensure the use of sustainable drainage systems in new developments. We have met
stakeholders to gauge their initial views on how the strengthened planning policy is working.
But it is important that any judgement on the effectiveness of the strengthened policy is
based on good, up-to-date evidence, allowing time for the policy to work through the planning
process.

136. The Government has introduced through the Housing and Planning Act 2016 a duty
on the government to carry out a review of both planning legislation and planning policy in
respect of sustainable drainage systems in developments. Any subsequent changes would
be based on the evidence from this review.

137. Further efforts need to be made to increase flood resilience in the built
environment. This would include taking steps to reduce the number of new properties
built in areas of flood risk against Environment Agency advice. In addition, there
should be a requirement for all new properties in flood risk areas to have flood
resilience measures built in. Government should also promote a co-ordinated
programme of retrofit for the growing number of existing properties in such areas.

138. The Government agrees with the underlying thrust of this recommendation regarding
the need to ensure developments are safe and resilient. However, flood risk is an important
consideration in the planning system and there are already strong policy safeguards in place.